MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6959338803 · doi:10.11575/prism/49526

Adapting Arts-Based Engagement Ethnography for Different Newcomer Groups

2023· other· en· W6959338803 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnographyFocus groupParticipant observationCitizenshipQualitative researchPhoto elicitationCultural competenceSet (abstract data type)Process (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. In 2021, Canada’s newcomer community (individuals who have arrived in Canada as immigrants, refugees, or international students within the last five years) had increased significantly to 1 in 4 people (Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada, 2023). For many newcomers, schools and communities are their first experience of Canadian culture and the site in which they learn about the norms of their host culture (Areepattamannil & Freeman, 2008; Berry et al., 2006; Rossiter & Rossiter; 2009). Methods. An arts-based engagement ethnography (ABEE) is an innovative, culturally sensitive, and multimodal approach to qualitative research conducted with underrepresented communities (Goopy & Kassan, 2019; Kassan et al., 2020). The intersection of social justice principles and ABEE form a unique research process that is participant-driven and easily adaptable to working with newcomer youth and families, allowing researchers to unearth how newcomers experience integration into Canadian society both individually and collectively. Each participant is given a set of cultural probes (e.g., iPad, diary, maps, stationary, and polaroid camera) and asked to create artifacts that document their integration experiences. The content of participants’ artifacts is used to develop individual interview protocols for each youth or family member, followed by a collective interview through focus groups with students or a family interview. Observations. Results and key learnings from current and past ABEE studies with newcomer youth and families will be presented, including cultural artifacts and integration themes. Conclusion. We present implications for researchers, as well as graduate students, practitioners, and service providers working with newcomer youth and families.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.866
GPT teacher head0.696
Teacher spread0.171 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207